Ethical Models and Applications of Globalization

Ethical Models and Applications of Globalization: Cultural, Socio-Political and Economic Perspectives Charles Wankel St. John's University, USA Shaun Malleck University of California, USA

Managing Director: Book Production Manager: Development Manager: Development Editor: Acquisitions Editor: Typesetters: Print Coordinator: Cover Design:

Lindsay Johnston Sean Woznicki Joel Gamon Hannah Abelbeck Erika Carter Lisandro Gonzalez Jamie Snavely Nick Newcomer

Published in the United States ofAmerica by Information Science Reference (an imprint oflGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com

Copyright© 2012 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written pennission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ethical models and applications of globalization: cultural, socio-political and economic perspectives I Charles Wankel and Shaun Malleck, editors.

p.cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: "This book presents the work of researchers who seek to advance the understanding of both the ethical impact of globalization and the influence of globalization on ethical practices from various cultural, socio-political, economic, and religious perspectives"--Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-61350-332-4 (hardcover)-- ISBN 978-1-61350-333-1 (ebook)-- ISBN 978-1-61350-334-8 (print & perpetual access) 1. Globalization--Moral and ethical aspects. 2. Globalization-Cross-cultural studies. I. Wankel, Charles. II. Malleck, Shaun K. III. Title. HF1359.E838 2012 174--dc22 2011013976

British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

Editorial Advisory Board Wolfgang Amann, Goethe University, Germany Geoff Archer, Royal Roads University, Canada Vladlena Benson, Kingston University, UK Gary Coombs, Ohio University, USA Martina Doolan, University ofHertfordshire, UK William Ferris, Western New England College, USA Dima Jamali, American University ofBeirut, Lebanon Dorothy Mpabanga, University ofBotswana, Botswana Patrick L. Onsando, Moi University, Kenya Gregory Robert Park, Dublin City University, Ireland Kathryn Pavlovich, University of Waikato, New Zealand Augustin SiiBmair, University ofLiineburg, Germany Jose G. Vargas-Hernandez, Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico Klaus-Peter Wiedmann, University ofHanover, Germany Carolyn Wiley, Roosevelt University, USA Jae Eon Yu, University ofKorea, Korea Muberra Yuksel, Kadir Has University, Turkey

List of Reviewers Dennis Briscoe, University ofSan Diego, USA Maria Jose Charlo, University ofSeville, Spain Katherine Covell, Cape Breton University, Canada Patrick Flanagan, St. John~ University, USA Dennis P. Heaton, Maharishi University ofManagement, USA Nancy E. Landrum, University ofArkansas at Little Rock, USA Robin Maclean, Cape Breton University, Canada Maslin Masrom, UTM International Campus, Malaysia Julianne E. Maurseth, Dominican University, USA Miriam Nunez, University ofSeville, Spain Win Phillips, Missouri University, USA Cheryl Rathert, Missouri University, USA Barbara A. Ritter, Coastal Carolina University, USA Mercedes Sanchez-Apellaniz, University ofSeville, Spain

Table of Contents

Preface .................................................................................................................................................. vii Chapterl Globalization and International Labor Standards, Codes of Conduct, and Ethics:An International lIRM Perspective .................................................................................................................................... 1 Dennis R Briscoe, University ofSan Diego, USA Chapter2 Embodied Ethics for Our Interdependent World:How Our Micro-level Choices Lead to Macro-level Impacts .................................................................................................................................................. 23 Julianne E. Maurseth, Dominican University of California, USA

Chapter3 Unintended Consequences of 'Business with 4 Billion': Lessons Learned from First Generation BOP Strategies ............................................................................................................................................... 42 Nancy E. Landrum, University ofArkansas at Little Rock, USA

Chapter4 Racing to the Bottom?The Effects of Globalization on Global Ethics ................................................. 55 Barbara A. Ritter, Coastal Carolina University, USA

Chapters Globalization in Benedict XVI's Caritas in Veritate ............................................................................. 62 Patrick Flanagan, St. Johns University, USA Chapter6 ICT Ethical Issues, Globalization and Knowledge Society .................................................................. 78 Maslin Masrom, UTM International Campus, Malaysia Zuraini Ismail, UTM International Campus, Malaysia Chapter7 An Eastern Approach to the Global Challenge of Corruptibility .......................................................... 89 Dennis P. Heaton, Maharishi University ofManagement, USA Ravi Subramaniam, Maharishi University ofManagement, USA

Chapter8 Health Ethics in a Global Context ...................................................................................................... 100 Win Phillips, University ofMissouri, USA Cheryl Rathert, University ofMissouri, USA

Chapter9 Women and Globalization ................................................................................................................... 119 Mercedes Sanchez-Apellaniz, University ofSeville, Spain Miriam Nunez, University ofSeville, Spain Maria Jose Charlo-Molina, University ofSeville, Spain Chapter 10 Fighting Hunger the Rights Way: Using videogames and children's human rights education as a means of promoting global citizenship .......................................................................................................... 141 Katherine Covell, Cape Breton University Children Rights Centre, Canada Robin MacLean, Cape Breton University Children Rights Centre, Canada

s s

Chapter 11 Giving Voice to Values: A New Perspective on Ethics in Globalised Organisational Environments. 160 Mark G. Edwards, University of Western Australia, Australia David A. Webb, University of Western Australia, Australia Stacie Chappell, Chappell Research and Consulting, Australia Mary C. Gentile, Babson College, USA Chapter 12 Ethical Issues Concerning International Labor Migration: Indonesian Cases .................................... 186 Alois A. Nugroho, Atma Jaya Catholic University, Indonesia Ati Cahayani, Atma Jaya Catholic University, Indonesia Chapter 13 Ethics of Global Tourism .................................................................................................................... 200 Loykie Lomine, University of Winchester, UK Chapter14 Cosmopolitanism and Ethics: Ethical Dilemmas in the Implementation of the Cosmopolitan Ideal. 21 O Roman Sukholutsky, The Hebrew University ofJerusalem, Israel Chapter 15 Corporate Social Responsibility in Water Services:A Developing Country Perspective ................... 227 George Tsogas, City University London, UK Chapter 16 A Critical Examination of the Assumptions, Beliefs and Ethical Considerations that Underlie Business Models of Global Poverty Reduction ................................................................................................. 238 Paul Roberts, University ofGuadalajara, Mexico

Grisselda Lassaga, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Argentina Isabel Rimanoczy, Minerva, USA

Chapter 17 Band-Aid Pedagogy, Celebrity Humanitarian, and Cosmopolitan Provincialism: An Analysis of Global Citizenship Education in the Republic of Ireland ................................................................... 262 Audrey Bryan, St. Patrick's College, Dublin City University, Ireland About the Contributors .................................................................................................................... 287

160

Chapter 11

Giving Voice to Values: A New Perspective on Ethics in Globalised Organisational Environments Mark G. Edwards University of Western Australia, Australia David A. Webb University of Western Australia, Australia Stacie Chappell University of Western Australia, Australia Mary C. Gentile Babson College, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter presents a multilevel approach to the practical expression ofcore values and ethical commitments in a globalised world GVV is an innovative approach to business ethics that offers a way of implementing and expressing ethical values at the micro, meso, and macro levels ofsocial interaction. Jn this chapter we describe the GVV approach and show how it can be applied both theoretically and practically to the task ofexpressing our shared values from the personal all the way to the global level ofethical concerns.

INTRODUCTION: EXPRESSING VALUES IN AN INTERCONNECTED WORLD "Global issues can only be understood as issues of increasingly broadening our understanding of the local, our understanding of who are the neighbors with whom we must productively and amicably engage" (Schrader, 2009, p. 22). DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61350-332-4.chOll

One ofthe distinguishing features ofcontemporary life is the increasing interdependence between the personal, the local and the global. We see this in the links between the local workplace and international economies, in individual consumer choice and its impact on the global environment, and the links between personal ethics and the capacity of our planet to provide sustainable and sustaining natural and social environments. We live in interdependent and interconnected worlds and, as never before, the expression of our values

Copyright 0 2012, !GI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of!GI Global is prohibited.

Giving Voice to Values

and ethical commitments will play a central role in shaping the social and natural environments that sustain us. A useful way of considering organisational ethics is to regard it as a constellation of ongoing conversations and negotiations about our values and their implementation in our workplaces. Ethics underpins both personal and collective human action, the goals that we aim for and the circumstances we aspire to. With the increasing globalisation of organisational relationships and their impact on natural and social environments, there is a need to develop more sophisticated conversations about how our values can be expressed from the personal all the way up to the global level of doing business (Collier & Fuller, 2004). This web of relationships is a multilevel phenomenon in that values find expression in our intrapersonal life, our interpersonal relationships, organisational work, community involvements, political and economic life and in the global network of associations and influences that each of us contributes to. How then can we connect the practical expression of our ethical commitments with this multilevel web ofwork and organisational involvements? How can we situate the "how" of building values-based working lives within the "how" of building sustaining organisations and global economies? In this chapter we describe a new approach to the implementation and teaching ofethical values called "Giving Voice to Values" (GVV) (Gentile, 2008; Gentile, 201 Oa}. GVV concentrates on how we can take action and communicate our core ethical commitments when they are challenged or when the innovative possibilities of ethical motivations are not being recognised. In the following pages we describe the relevance of GVV to the many different organisational realities that constitute globalised working environments. One of the many benefits ofGVV in this multi-level context is that it does not create an either-or dichotomy between the "bad apple" and the "bad barrel" versions of addressing ethical issues

(Ashforth, Gioia, Robinson & Trevino, 2008). The "bad apple" approach places causal emphasis on the ethical character of individuals and on their personal decision-making capacities and psychological characteristics. The "bad barrel" approach takes a structural view of unethical behaviour. Theories based on this perspective focus on those organisational and regulatory environments that result in systemic corruption and other widespread unethical practices. GVV, in contrast to both these theoretical orientations, places its explanatory spotlight on how deeply held convictions and ethical values are either suppressed or expressed. The unit ofanalysis is the conversation ratherthan the single individual or the social collective. Conversation and communications arethe locations for perfonning ethical analysis and for learning to articulate ethical concerns and commitments. Consequently, GVV is eminently suited to exploring multi-level environments because it explores interactions that occur (ornot} across and between any strata in a multilevel system rather than assuming that one particular level is causal. The expression of core values by individuals, groups and organisations are powerful acts that have an impact far beyond their immediate context. The GVV lens sees that impact unfolding at multiple levels within many contexts including the micro world of intra- and interpersonal debates all the way up to the activities of international organisations and global networks and systems. But more than this, because ofits dialogical focus, GVV can investigate the practical relationships between the personal, the organisational and the global. Even where values are expressed in policy documents, vision and mission statements or as global agreements, these commitments are always voiced and implemented through personal and interpersonal involvements. This perspective links the personal voice with the ethical dialogues perfonned within communities of all kinds. Before introducing the GVV approach in more detail, a brief discussion of the literature on globalisation and ethics will be presented.

161


Globalisation is a complex and multifaceted range of phenomena and a great deal has been written about the ethical aspects of its varied forms and impacts. Whatever else it may require of us, globalisation demands that new ways of teaching and implementing ethical commitments be explored and we will discuss the emergence of a "global ethics" within this context. Following this discussion, the basics of the GVV approach will be presented. We then situate GVV within a multilevel model that shows how the expression of values can be contextualised within personal and interpersonal (micro), group (meso ), organisational and inter-organisational (macro) and international and global (mondo) domains of interaction. Some case studies will be described which demonstrate how the communication of ethical values can elicit change within each of these domains. Following these case studies, the contributions of the GVV approach to the study of ethics and globalisation will be described and their implications for the development of a more responsible global business culture discussed. The chapter concludes with some thoughts on how a global ethics, as a way ofconnecting social players across multiple personal and social contexts, can be developed using the GVV tools and principles.

GLOBALISATION AND ETHICS Globalisation is the multidimensional and rather chaotic transformation ofthe world economic system that arises from greater and more immediate human interactivity and interconnectedness. It is an ongoing process whose roots may well go back several hundred years and it impacts on political, cultural, technological, environmental andhuman realities at multiple levels. The empirical reality of globalisation should not be confused with any ofthe various ideological or theoretical positions on this phenomenon (Papastephanou, 2005). In particular, globalisation is to be distinguished from ideological positions that assume the supremacy

162

of global markets, or western democracy, or that global economic systems will create permanent material wealth and international stability. Such views, particularly since the events of the global frnancial crisis, are very much in question and perhaps even in terminal decline (Saul, 2009). However, the phenomenon of globalisation, as the growing international flow ofgoods, services, ideas, communications, people and cultures, is anything but dead. While it is true that globalisation has been used to promote various partisan positions, as Marianna Papastephanou (2005, p. 534) says, "it would be erroneous to conclude that the admission ofthe ideological role globalisation plays should lead us somehow to deny its reality". The interconnectedness ofcommunities across the globe means that our values and their concrete implications are also becoming more interdependent. This is nowhere more evident than in the world of commercial pursuits and in the globalisation of organisational activities. The skills and workplace conditions of an IT worker in India have implications forthe ways companies inAustralia plan their telecommunications services. The choices we make about whether to buy local food produce has implications for global environmental issues. The ethical climates that corporate executives encourage can have serious ramifications for many different communities across the globe. Whatever we might think of its varied impacts, globalisation is making the interconnectedness of physical environments, social systems and cultural life more immediate and more obvious. Globalisation holds great potential as a source of positive development but it also carries with it immense and very real dangers. Globalisation contributes towards the improvement in living standards for many developed and developing nations (Dollar, 2005) and it also contributes to environmental and social damage on a vast scale (Jorgenson & Kick, 2006). It is not unexpected then that globalisation should attract considerable attention from ethicists.


The general study of ethics and its relationships to globalisation can be viewed as having two major branches. One branch examines the ethics ofglobalisation itself(Peters, 2004; Singer, 2004) and analyses the phenomenon through various theoretical lenses. This branch looks at, for example, the utilitarian benefits of economic globalisation, or the need for justice in the social and economic spheres, or it takes the form of resistance theories that study the ethical deficiencies of globalisation in how it impacts on local and indigenous economic and cultural systems. This ethics-of-globalisation stream generally casts a critical eye over the outcomes of economic and cultural globalisation and, in particular, its impact on developing nations and on communities that lack economic power. The second stream focuses on the study of an emergent form of ethics that has appeared, not so much as a reaction to globalisation, but out of a more developed sense of the role of ethics at the global level. The importance of systems of values and beliefs on the global stage has seen the emergence of a new kind of ethics, a "global ethics" (Eade & O'Byme, 2005) that studies the expression and application ofethical commitments in a global context. Rather than adopting any one particular lens, global ethics acknowledges and even tries to accommodate a plurality of ethical approaches so that a more integrative understanding can be developed and eventually applied. While critical analysis is also very much part of this approach, global ethics emphasises how we reflexively view and manage the challenges that globalisation raises. This global ethics stream is represented in the development of"world ethics" (Dower, 2007), "ethical cosmopolitanism" (Girl, 2006; Odysseos, 2003) and "global business citizenship" (Wood, 2006) and it is within this emerging stream of a global ethics that we will explore the contribution of the GVV approach. The development ofa global ethics is not about building a unitary system of ethics or an attempt to get agreement on a single set of norms or prin-

ciples (Commers, Vandekerckhove & Verlinden, 2008). While several streams of research have found a strong basis for the existence ofuniversal values (Donaldson, 1999; Schwartz, 2005), and while shared ethical principles may be one topic within its ambit of study, global ethics does not search for a formulaic approach to describing ethical values. In this it might be contrasted to the approach of Hans Kung and Helmut Schmidt (Kung & Schmidt, 1998) and others who seek a covenant on what those core values might be. Global ethics is a general field of study in which multiple viewpoints on the nature ofethics within a global context can be explored and integrated. In exploring these global issues, global ethics retainsafocusonthepersonal, thelocalandtheparticular and links these to the world-centric issues that it examines. One way of forming these kinds oflinks is through the idea ofcross-cultural values and hypemorms. Findings from several streams of research indicate that a relatively small set of diverse values has been found to be shared and expressed in ways that cut across organisational, ethnic, national, and cultural boundaries (Apel, 2008; Schwartz, 2005). These common values set the foundation for the myriad ofinternational and global activities that criss-cross and swathe the planet in networks ofrelationships and exchanges. How might we express these shared values so as to improve the ethical dimensions of economic globalisation? How can we implement and act on the values we share to establish more sustaining forms oforganisingatlocal and global levels? How can workplaces support the expression ofthe core values that connect us globally in ways that are mutually enriching? Such questions highlight the role of values in developing a global ethics that is requisite to the challenges facing individuals and organisations in the 21 •1 century.

163


GIVING VOICE TO VALUES The Giving Voice to Values approach emphasises theroleofvaluesinthestudyandpracticeofethics. It complements more philosophical discussions of what is or is not the right thing to do with a practice-based approach to enacting values. Ethics, from a GVV viewpoint, is about developing skills, building confidence and finding and giving voice to express the ethical values that guide lives and communities. Values are everyday, experiential aspects of personal and cultural identity and so they carry a relevance and immediacy that ethics does not. GVV is both a theory ofapplied ethics as well as curriculum for studying ethical behaviour through the expression of core values (Gentile, 2010a). On the theoretical side, GVV regards ethics as a structured process ofconversing about what we regard as morally valuable in our lives and how we can express those values. GVV draws on multiple research paradigms to present a dialogical view of ethical behaviour. It is an applied ethics in that it focuses on implementation and in situ application. On the curriculum side, GVV takes an appreciative pedagogical approach that can be summed up with the question: "IfI were to act on my values in this situation, what would I say and do?' It is different to other ethical theories and pedagogies because it focuses on implementation and the practice of ethical actions rather than on

the more usual approaches of analysing cases using ethical theories and values clarification. While these methods have their place, it is becoming ever more apparent that ethics programs focus on the implementation side as well as on theory and ethical decision making. In the wake of the global financial fiasco of 2008 and the role of business schools in driving attitudes that contributed to that crisis, several ethics educators have stressed the need for more action-oriented and values-based approaches in ethics analysis and practice (Butler, 2009). Figure 1 shows some ofthe differences and complementarities between GVV and other contemporary approaches to ethics pedagogy. Where many programmes concentrate on theoretical analysis anddecisionmaking, theGVV emphasisisonhow to act once we recognise that an ethical dilemma or opportunity is present. At this post-analysis, post decision-making level, ethics becomes much more about the conversations we engage in regarding our values, particularly our experience of values conflicts. But there are many ways to express our values and the GVV metaphorof"giving voice" includes all sorts offorms of expression, for example, data gathering, coalition building, finding allies, identification of stakeholders, exploring purposes, crafting responses, and even choosing to be silence where appropriate. To give "voice" does not refer

Figure 1. Complementarities between GVV and other ethics approaches

I

Current Ethics Approaches

The focus of current approaches

The use of ethical theories to judge and analyse

The use of decision making models

I

I


Normalising the ethical conflict/opportunity

What will I do and say in this situation? The focus ofGVV

Consider options guided by ethics codes, laws, etc.

164

Developing and practising the most powerful response


to some cathartic process of sounding off about one's ideals. It is a sophisticated process ofimplementing a considered response and it needs good leadership skills, practice and personal insight. Implicit in this focus on implementation are some important assumptions about the purpose and process of both values conflicts and conversations. GVV starts from the premise that folks know what they think is right in a particular situation. Essentially, we know that it is wrong to steal, to be dishonest, or to remain silent when the organisations we work for act unethically. A fundamental and often overlooked aspect of ethical disasters like Enron, HIH or Siemens is not that people were ignorant or confused over the ethical implications of their actions but that they didn't say or do anything in response to the ethical challenges they faced. Many people involved in these cases of massive fraud and corruption knew that laws and codes of conduct were being ignored and violated. However, those who did have misgivings, who felt their values were being abused and manipulated simply didn't know what to do about it and rationalised their way into quiescence. The issue here is not one ofconfusion over the moral complexities of an issue but one of the practical implementation of action when we know things are not right. Of course, once we doubt our capacity to act effectively and remain silent we come up with a whole of bunch of good reasons and rationalisations for doing so. But if we do want to act and pursue conversations about our ethical concerns, what should we then say, who should we speak to, and how should we say these things so that they might persuade others? This is the territory that GVV explores and the curriculum is designed to equip individuals and groups with the skills and experiences to engage in such conversations more often, more confidently and more effectively. The underlying philosophy ofGVV is summarised in 12 assumptions (Gentile, 2010b). These are that:

1.

We possess innate ethical capacities that need to be expressed and acted on; 2. We each have chosen to voice and act on our values on some occasions; 3. We can improve our ability to voice and act on values; 4. Some contexts are more conducive to voicing and acting than others; 5. Our example is powerful and may encourage others; 6. We are never alone in voicing our values; 7. The better we know ourselves the more ably we can act on our core ethical values; 8. Developing and rehearsing responses to frequently-heard rationalizations can empower ourselves and others; 9. Our capacity to voice our values is improved through practise; 10. We may not always succeed but it is always worthwhile to act on our core values because; 11. The considered and open expression of values leads to better decisions; 12. The more we believe that the expression of values is possible and worthwhile, the more likely we are to do it. These assumptions support a clear focus on implementing values in meaningful situations rather than analysing cases through the application of philosophical principles. It means that conversations are opened up about how to act rather than whether to act because of the complexities involved. Consequently, ethics, whether in business or otherwise, becomes the study of conversations about how to act and the skills and analytical tools that encourage the expression of deep values. Whenever and wherever we have conversations about issues of values-based concern, we are engaging in applied ethics. This can be done formally in the class room and in research and it can also be done informally in situ, in the places and occasions when we feel that our values are being denied or manipulated. As a pedagogy, through examining our innate sense of

165


Figure 2. The process offinding and giving voice 2.Puroose and Choice What is my personal and professional ur ose?

3. Process and Data What'S at stake for others and how do I connect with them?

valuing, GVV aims to enhance individuals' ability to act on their values, express their opinions and develop plans for action when they have an ethical concern. The process (see Figure 2) by which GVV explores the expression ofethical values involves four key phases: i) acknowledging the ethical issues at stake whether they are problematic dilemmas or opportunities for innovation, ii) connecting with our personal and professional purposes and seeing that choice is possible in any situation, iii) developing an action-oriented process by which an ethical dilemma can be addressed and gathering the information needed to resource that process (through identifying key stakeholders and appreciatively reflecting on what is at stake for them), and iv) developing and practising facilitative conversations (GVV scripts) by identifying the rationalisations (those arguments that inhibit action), the levers (those factors that build understandings between stakeholders) and the most powerful responses and enablers that help to achieve your core purpose. The GVV curriculum has been designed for application across many different levels and domains of organisation activity. In the following section a multilevel model is presented that explores how GVV can be viewed at the: within group, organisation, industry, socio-cultural and global levels. How we express our values in the workplace is a complex interaction of these and many other factors. The multilevel nature ofhow ethical commitments are acted on demands that

166

we consider issues of globalisation and the international environments that are increasingly having an impact upon local and personal values and moralities. Having presented an introductory overview of the GVV approach, we now tum our attention to its application at the multi-level nature of globalisation.

GW AND THE NORMATIVEDESCRIPTIVE DIVIDE IN ETHICS The distinction between empirical or descriptive and normative or prescriptive approaches to ethics often appears in discussions ofglobalisation (see, for example, Ferguson, 2007). The questions of what is and what ought to be are fundamental to the reality of increasing global connectivity and the debate over globalisation as an actual empirical phenomenon or as a particular vision ofour global future. In some ways this division between the study ofethics as an empirical description ofreality andasanormativeguideforwhatwewishto bereal has limited utility. In a world where the ways we think about economics, commerce, international relations, sustainability and education can have such a powerful capacity to structure the bricks and mortar of natural and social environments, it is too simplistic to separate empirical reality from what our theories and conceptual frames deem as preferable. Our normative expectations constitute social and physical realities as much as the other way around. The question then is


not one of whether we should talce a normative, bottom-up approach or a descriptive, scientific approach to the study of ethical commitments. A more relevant question is how the expression of ethical values can be facilitated to enact a more open and responsive world? What sorts of conversations do we need to engage in to help bring our core concerns and the core concerns of others into the open? The GVV approach acknowledges both sides of this debate and through the study of what is it aims to support enabling conversations about what ought to be. Through conversation we can create a larger truth. Conversations talce place first and foremost between individuals. An effective approach must be both bottom-up and top-down and networked across organisational and societal levels. For example, ethical codes are one method for developing normative standards. However, even with ethical codes, we need to engage in meaning-malcing conversations (Gilley, Robertson & Mazur, 2010) and develop techniques for malcing these conversations more effective. Engaging in conversations where values are voiced in skilful ways does not necessarily aim for the end point of normative consensus. In fact, finding out what shared values and hyper norms we may have in common, across organisations and across continents, can be astartingpointfor a more honest engagement with ethical issues. Resolving an ethical dilemma, from this perspective, does not mean avoiding contention or reaching some forced consensus but rather, remaining engaged in a conversation that can produce outcomes that reflect peoples' closely held values. Consequently, this is not a bottom-up approach to ethics nor even necessarily about consensus. It can be operative at any level of social activity and organising. For example, when GVV is implemented at the level of management it supports communications and actions that are often about setting up norms, rules, policies and all those elements that shape the ethical climates of the organisation. GVV is not about the analysis of some situation and the application of rules to decide whether there is

some ethical dilemma present. It is, as Carolyn Woo described it (2009), "post-decision malcing" and about implementation. Of course, embedded in this is the idea that ifindividuals are better able and inclined to think through their values-based positions, using the GVV questions (about what's at stalce for all; about reasons and rationalizations, etc.), the likelihood that better decisions will result is increased. GVV focuses on the question of how to act rather than the question of what is ethical. The "what" question has been the topic ofanalysis for many approaches to ethics and its analytical focus has offered many important insights. But we need to complementthis with a focus on implementation - the how of ethics. The debate over normative or descriptive does not address this issue. Normative approaches to ethics can be thought of in two ways. On the one hand there is the bottom-up view ofethics as a set ofpopularly accepted moral principles and ''normal" behavioural expectations. On the other hand, there is the view of normative as the statement of universally desired norms and moral standards as opposed to actual norms and standards. For both ofthese approaches the GVV response is that, in addition to considering what might be normatively judged as right or desirable, we need to ask how those ethical commitments can be expressed. In a normative world where the tyranny of the majority may inhibit the individual voicing of contrary views, the challenge is to find ways of expressing core values despite prevailing attitudes. Doing this in a skilful and sophisticated way means, however, that connections across personal and cultural boundaries have to be identified and explored. This does not deny the controversy surrounding the nature of shared values. The point is to give people the hope that dialogue and learning and even common ground are possible, and to describe ways of finding the shared values that lie at the core of an issue, even when they are wrapped up in particular personal and organisational and cultural preferences, styles or conventions.

167


THE MANY LEVELS OF PERSONAL AND SOCIAL EXISTENCE The study of business ethics through a multilevel lens has received relatively little attention from researchers. However, it's use in exploring issues such as organisational sustainability (Starik & Rands, 1995), global governance (Winter, 2006) and leader development (Day, Harrison & Halpin, 2009) suggests that it has much to offer to the study of ethics. The multi-level approach recognises that complexity in organisations can be studied and understood not only from an individualist perspective but through a collective lens that includes dyads and triads, groups and organisational subunits and from a macro perspective of the organisation itself and even more encompassing inter-organisational networks (Klein&Kozlowski, 2000). So, the multiplicity of levels can be both intra- and extra-organisational. Such an approach opens up not only a more nuanced understanding of individual behaviour but also of the interrelationships between levels of social context.Amore integrative view ofthe role of ethics in organisations and society requires a multilevel approach. In their integrative study of leader development Day and Harrison stress that (2007, p. 362). "Multilevel issues are inherent to the study of organizational behavior: Individuals often are nested within work teams that are in turn nested within organizations that are nested within industries (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Attempting to understand individuals devoid of the broader contexts in which they interrelate is to a large degree missing the point, and more important, can lead to incomplete models and biased estimates ofrelationships. " Figure 3 represents levels that are often described in the organisational literature (see, for example, House, Rousseau & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; Starik & Rands, 1995). Two key features ofthe multi-level nature 168

of organisational realities are that: i) levels are inclusively nested within one another and ii) the constituents of each level continue to be active and influence the functions and cultures of all the other levels. The nested nature of levels means that the micro sets the basis for the meso which in tum is the foundation for the macro which in tum provides the basis for the mondo. House, Rousseau and Thomas-Hunt (1995) called this nested laying of multilevel system "inclusiveness". This inclusiveness does not mean that individuals lose their individuality within teams or within organisations or that organisations lose their capacity to make independent decisions because they are members ofinternational economic systems. But it does mean that the expression of values and culture and the actions, intentions and behavioural strategies that arise within any level are subject to multiple structural contingencies and interdependencies that cut across all of these levels. These inter-level relationships can provide a space for the exercising of personal and group freedoms but they can also be the means for restricting the range of behaviours and the kinds of values expressed at any level. Figure 3 shows the nested nature of multilevel existence in an organisational context. At the micro level, individual (A) is nested within

Figure 3. A multilevel ecology oforganizational cultures


the dyad (B, A). At the meso level, multiple dyads and individuals are nested within the team (C, B, A) and teams within organisational subunits (D, C, B, A) and so on, so that individuals, dyads and teams still retain their identities and volitional capacities at every level. However, it also well known that the multiple layering of socio-cultural contexts does change the nature of how individuality and group identity is expressed (Johns, 2006; Oyserman & Uskul, 2008). Clearly the sheer size of the organisational, societal and global spheres and the complex situational environments they engender, holds great sway on the interior experience and exterior expression of behavioural and cultural life for all levels. Ethical commitments and behaviours are similarly subject to structural forces and environmental contingencies. For example, the cross-level influence of collective factors on how employees express their ethical values can be seen in the impact of various "neutralisations" (Ashforth & Anand, 2003) and "reasons and rationalisations" (Gentile, 2010a). The well known effect of attributing responsibility to some other organisational or societal level - "that's the organisation's responsibility not mine" or "it's the job of government to care for people" - shows the powerful shaping of behaviour and attitudes through the interaction oflevels. This shaping can also occur in multiple directions, upwards from micro and meso (individual and team) to the broader spheres ofmacro and mondo (organisational, societal and global), downwards from the organisational levels to the micro world of individual employees and finally within each of the levels, for example from team to team or organisation to organisation. Speaking of the power of multilevel context on social behaviour, Johns (2006, p. 388) makes the point that: "Although upward effects are certainly possible (consider the context that rogue trader Nick Leeson supplied to the defimct Barings Bank), most cross-level conceptions ofcontext are top-down, considering the impact ofa higher level ofanalysis on a lower level. As such, context can have direct

effects at the lower level, as well as moderate relationships between lower-level variables".

The example of upward effect, that is, of the emergent influence of the individual on larger social contexts, that Johns gives here is an interesting one. If one corrupt individual trader can have a systemic impact through multiple levels of organisation, it is possible that expressing one's personal ethical commitments could likewise have a positive effect through multiple levels of organisational and social ecology. The GVV assumption that one person's example can have immense power to encourage others is highly relevant here. But it is also true that the multilayered nature of organisational existence makes the unencumbered expression of personal ethical commitments a very difficult thing in practice. The whistleblower phenomenon highlights both sides of this issue. Their example shows both the power of the individual but also the constraining powers of the organisation to resist openness and candour. Perhaps the most notable feature of the whistleblower phenomenon is the degree of harassment and retribution that whistleblowers experience from their organisations. Whistleblowing is evidence of the systemic failure of many organisations to create environments that support the expression of values. We know that some organisational cultures or contexts and some types oforganisational leaders can make it more or less likely that individuals will feel encouraged to voice and enact their values (Edmondson, 2003; Engelbrecht,Aswegen & Theron, 2005). Research on management and incentive systems (Rosanas & Velilla, 2005), leadership styles (Amabile, Hadley & Kramer, 2002; Grojean, Resick, Dickson & Smith, 2004) and group dynamics (Edmondson, 2003) have identified many levers which can be used, positively or negatively, in the effort to encourage voice. For example, we know that diversity in a team, if well managed, can lead to more perspectives being shared and can even enable dissent. We also know thatthe willingness oforganisational leaders 169


to explain their thinking process, and especially to illustrate how they may have come to change their mind, out loud in front of their teams, can be very empowering. And research on creativity suggests that there are conditions under which employees feel most free to both think differently and to share those perspectives: conditions like the intentional creation ofsafe spaces and time for such reflections. Finally, we know that leaders' and organisations' appetite for dissenting voices can be limited, so it is important to consider the most effective and most collaborative ways to express values-based positions, such that they can be actively heard and entertained.

VALUES AND GLOBALISATION The relationship between values and the globalisation phenomenon is a complex one. Some researchers find that globalisation is influencing our personal and community values (Whalley, 2008) while others discuss how globalisation is an expression of personal and local values writ large (Schrader, 2009). Whatever the dynamics ofthese complexities, personal values both influence and are influenced by the values that drive social exchanges at larger and more systemic levels. Although individuals might feel isolated from broader social events, the micro and meso worlds ofpersonal and group experience and those manifested at the macro and mondo worlds of societal and global exchange are not independent. Values are inherent within all of these levels. As David Schrader puts it in his discussion of the relationship between values and globalisation, "Values guide life. The values ofindividuals guide the lives ofthose individuals. The values of communities guide the lives of those communities" (Schrader, 2009, p. 22). However much we might wish to ignore it, there is a reflexive relationship between personal values and the kinds ofactivities that occur at the level of the global community. No discussion of values and globalisation can evade the issue of the universality of some set of 170

core values (i.e., Schwartz 1994) and relevance (e.g., Alkire 2002) of universal values. Stating perhaps the obvious, to support the existence of a set of universal values is not tantamount to suggesting that all values are universal. In the context of globalisation, a useful basis for supporting dialog is the recognition that sense-making regarding situational and ideological phenomena stems from a common point of reference, that is, from universally held values. The GVV approach offers a useful frame from which these common values can be utilised in conversation to explore and, ultimately to resolve important ethical challenges. This is so because, while GVV recognises that differences and disagreements about ethical values may exist, it is the goal of working toward achieving a shared understanding that establishes the capacity for holding ethical conversations. These conversations can occur at multiple levels. Referring to the multilevel nature ofsocial ecologies depicted in Figure 3, values across different levels shape each other in amultidirectional fashion. The micro and the meso feed into and shape the macro and the mondo and these more encompassing layers are not simply the aggregate of the individual expression of values but, in turn, form and contextualise personal and group values. GVV recognises that how we understand this complex relationship depends greatly on the conceptual lenses we use. In taking this position, GVV does not limit itself to either individualist or collectivist assumptions about social change, but recognises the need to include a multilevel perspective to appreciate the dynamics involved in complex social phenomena like globalisation. This view is expressed by John Walley when he suggests that (2008, p.1511):

"Understanding how collective identity enters individual decision making may be necessary to make realistic assessments ofthe impacts ofglobalisation on economicperformance; andmarketbased globalisation itself may have important implications for values and collective identity".


We know, from the results ofseveral streams of research, that the macro level ofcollectiveidentity, group norms and social influence has immense power to shape personal views and behaviours (see, for example, Heath, 2008; Zimbardo, 2008). We also know that individuals sometimes express their values despite overwhelming situational constraints (Larmer, 1992). Why might this bethe case? How do individuals and groups develop the capacity to speak out on matters of importance to them irrespective of the inhibiting forces that surround them? And how do organisations set new courses towards visionary ways ofcontributing to the collective good? How might we, as a global community, find ways of expressing our shared values that call for more sustaining and more balanced ways of global development? How might we create forms of globalisation that are more humane, more ethical and more responsive the personal, the local and the diversity of voices that is the basis of all lasting wealth? In the following section we discuss how a GVV approach to ethics opens up a new way of considering these kinds of questions.

THE MULTILEVEL POWER OF EACH VOICE

The relationships between the personal voice and the collective voice are dynamic and multidimensional.Any model for conceptualising the expression of values within the context of globalisation must be able to represent these relationships and connect the individual and his/her behaviour with the global scale ofinternational organisational activities. At one level we can say that this is simply too complex. While we can encourage individuals to communicate their ethical commitments and see the outcomes of that process at the micro and perhaps meso levels, it is clearly very difficult to link up personal acts with macro level outcomes for organisations, let alone at the societal or global levels. On the other hand, isn'tthis level ofspatial

and temporal connection between the personal, the local and the global exactlywhatglobalisation is all about? In this section we attempt to capture this sense ofconnection and interdependency and consider how the expression ofethical values can be represented through micro, meso, macro, and mondo layers of organisational involvements. To provide some specific material for describing this model we will first present three case studies. These case studies have been chosen to show the multilevel nature of how values can be expressed and acted on. Three Case Studies

The three briefcase studies that follow are presented to illustrate multilevel dynamics from a GVV perspective. The cases highlight how individuals, organisations and large global networks have the capacity to make independent and deliberate actions to either express or suppress their core ethical commitments. But these capacities for agency and intention need to be seen within the context of social forces that can also enable or inhibit the articulation ofvalues-based positions. Table 1 sets out some questions that might be asked at each ecological level in the presence of both agency/ autonomy as well as structural forces. At the micro level, each individual can be seen as having a choice to act but also as needing to respond to structural constraints. Similarly, at the macro level, each organisation can be regarded not only as making its own independent ethical choices but as also being subject to macro level pressures to conform to, for example, local customs, regulatory environments and competitive demands.Atthemondo level, the global networks of commercial and organisational activity have a responsibility to promote sustainable intergenerational wealth because, ultimately, they are reliant on the capacity of the planet to provide healthy and nourishing environments. Because GVV focuses on the conversations that occur across these agentic and structural dimensions it

171


Table 1. Agency and social conditions across three levels Levels of social ecology

Agency conditions

Social (situational) conditions

The Individual (micro)

How are personal values expressed? How do they change organisational values and their expression?

What meso, macro and mondo factors enable or inhibit the expression of personal values?

The Organisational (macro)

How are organisational values expressed? How do they influence personal, industry and societal values?

What industry-specific, societal and global factors enable or inhibit the expression of organisational values?

The Global (mondo)

How are international values expressed? How do they shape personal and organisational values?

What industry-specific and societal factors enable or inhibit the expression of sustaining values at the global level?

can provide a means for analysing the either the implementation or the stifling of our core ethical principles at each of these levels.

THREE CASE STUDIES OF GIVING VOICE CASE #1: The micro-level-"Robyn's dilemma" Robyn is a principal partner in a new environmental consulting firm. She is a new member on the board of an innovative new renewable energy association. Recently, the association decided to develop an industry reporting standard for the public reporting of potential resources associated with a particular energy sector. Robyn was asked to Chair a committee established to progress the initiative. The key objective was to create transparency and consistency across the industry. The project was a perfect fit for Robyn given her networks overseas where similar codes were being developed. Over a period of 12 months, Robyn and the committee developed a well supported document. They were able to draw on the experience of their overseas colleagues to create an innovative standard. As preparations for the launch of the code were being finalized, Robyn became aware that the Head of the Association planned to limit its distribution to those willing to pay for its use indirectly by becoming members in the association (cost of $5000). Robyn felt uncomfortable with this change in strategy. The more she thought about it the more she thought

172

it was counter to the basic intent of the initiative, which was to encourage a higher standard across the industry. Robyn was also concerned that the new strategy was inconsistent with initiatives in other industries and jurisdictions - all of whom had given generously of their IP to the Canadian association. Robyn did communicate her concerns directly to the Head of the association, but to no avail. Ultimately, she was faced with the decision to remain silent or to act. There were many reasons to stay silent: the Head of the association didn't agree and probably had the final say anyway; why make waves and risk being unpopular with the Head; no one else had raised the issue; there was no explicit promise to her colleagues overseas that the code would be free, etc. However, Robyn connected with her purpose for being involved in the association and the committee, which was to contribute to the betterment of industry practice. Shehadgivenuptimewithherfamilytoparticipate in the board and the development of the industry code. Robyn felt the cost of remaining silent was larger than the possibility of losing status on the committee. Robyn decided to communicate her issues more broadly despite her realization that this might result in termination or resignation of her role. She scripted her message and checked the language with a trusted friend. Robyn communicated her key points in a group email to the members of the association's executive group. Interestingly, a number of the executive agreed


with her assessment. The result was that many voices emerged to create a third strategy for the launch of the industry code that addressed many ofRobyn's concerns. The code was launched and hailed a success. More importantly, Robyn felt both heard and effective. And surprisingly, over the next few months the Head of the association increasingly consulted Robyn's opinions on things and explicitly expressed gratitude for her contributions. Through strategically voicing her values, Robyn was able to influence the meso, macro and ultimately through the impact of the code on industry practice, the mondo levels.

CASE #2: The macro level: "Marshalls and supply chain ethics" It is believed that around 20 percent of workers in Indian sandstone quarries are children and some may be as young as six years old. This could mean that almost a million children are employed in very dangerous and physically gruelling work in these quarries. Working conditions in these quarries is very poor and exposure to disease and accidents is always present.Although regulations do existto improve conditions these standards are routinely ignored. Much of the produce of the quarries is exported overseas. TheMarshalls Group, a United Kingdom based landscaping company decided to do things differently and to reassess the working conditions of its Indian suppliers of sandstone. Marshalls was established in 1880 and is the United Kingdom's leading manufacturer oflandscaping products and provider of design services and technical expertise for public, private and commercial landscaping projects. Marshalls operates its own quarries and manufacturing sites in the throughout the UK where it employs almost 2,500 people. It also draws some of its supplies of natural stone from India. In 2003, Marshalls sent some senior employees India to assess the conditions of workers in the suppliers' quarries. After finding that children were employed in

many of the most difficult of jobs, for example in operating jack hammers to break up slate and in sorting out the chipped stones to be used in crazy paving, Marshalls decided to change things. They became a member of the ''Ethical Trading Initiative" and employed an auditing company to ensure that working conditions were dramatically improved, that children were no longer employed and that schools were established locally to provide schooling for children who could no longer work in the quarries. Marshalls consolidated all of their supply of sandstone from India into one supplier and developed a partnership agreement with that supplier to ensure that no children are employed in their business. They address issues ofchild labour and bonded labour together so that the Indian company ensures that good working conditions are made available and that no children or bonded labourers are used in the production of the supplied materials and products. One of the key figures in this transformation in supply chain ethics was Marshalls' Group Marketing Director Chris Harrop. It was Harrop who made the initial report to Marshalls' senior management. The key experience for Harrop on his first trip to India was seeing two young girls of a similar age to his own daughters sitting in a pile ofbroken sandstone picking out small chips for paving. The process of dramatically improving the whole supply chain conditions of workers and their families has been an important one for Marshalls and it has galvanised the Group to look at the whole sustainability and ethical nature of what they do. Harrop says of the new vision at Marshalls (Harrop, 2008):

Ultimately we believe that we cannot maximise long term profits by destroying the environment, exploiting workers or abusing our economic power - it is simply not sustainable. Operating our business in a sustainable and responsible manner means that we must not only make a profit but also take a proactive stance on our corporate social responsibilities.

173


Case #3: The mondo level: "The Code" The global tourism industry is the largest and fastest growing economic sector worldwide and there is perhaps no better example ofthe interconnections that exist between the personal demand for a good or service and the network of global organisations required to meet that demand.As the global marketplace becomes more aware of and sensitive to ethical issues, the values that guide industry players come under close scrutiny. A significant, complex and growing problem faced by the global tourism industry involves the sexual exploitation ofchildren by tourists predominantly in South-East Asia, Latin America, Africa, and Eastern Europe. While the industry is not accused of encouraging such behaviour, it has been asked to collaborate and to react against the use of its networks and establishments for this purpose {www.thecode.org). Given the vast size of many tourism industry networks, their knowledge and high skills in interacting with customers clearly have the potential to make a difference at both the point of destination and origin. The goal is not merely to prevent the sexual exploitation ofchildren, butto contribute to its eradication. Globally the tourism industry provides travellers with transport, accommodation, food and beverage, entertainment, and numerous

other goods and service opportunities. Consequently, those working within the industry at all levels ofthe product experience supply chain have many unique opportunities to contribute toward the achievement of the above eradication goal. Committing to the implementation of The Code of Conduct, The Code as it is popularly known, demonstrates that by actively promoting socially responsible, non-sexually exploitative child-safe tourism, signatories put values and ethics above marginal profits {www.thecode.org), representing a top-down, global industry driven expression of giving voice to values. Of course, it is not just a question of becoming a signatory to The Code, required is a full behavioural commitment to its content in every sense.

Voicing Values at Multiple Levels The multilevel power of each voice can be represented within a framework where ethical issues themselves are seen as comprised of multiple spheres of expression. Figure 4 presents a view where values are expressed within and across levels ofa broadholarchy ofnested organisational and social environments. Given the power ofthese layers to either support or dampenthe expression of personal values, the issue becomes one ofcreating environments and social climates that encourage

Figure 4. Giving voice to values at multiple levels oforganizational involvements

IVoicing personal values I Voicing personal values in international settings Voicing personal values in industry environments Voicing personal values in organisation settings Voicing personal values with others Voicing intra-personal values and insights

174

The multilevel continuum of org11nis11tion11l environments

I Voicing collective values I


individuals, groups, organisations and institutions to give voice to their values. GVV shows how we can link the good/bad apple or individual approach with the good/bad barrel or systems approach to explaining ethical issues. The multilevel lens can be used to unpack these connections in two ways: i) voicing personal values, that is, as individuals acting on and expressing their values through what they think, do and say in each of the many spheres of organisational involvements, and ii) voicing collective values, that is, as collective groups of people expressing group values in what they decide, how they organise and what they work towards. In both these multilevel ways of representing the voicing of values, the focus of a GVV perspective remains on the question - If I/We were to express our values in this situation what would I/We say and do.

Voicing Personal Values Personal ethical commitments can be acted on and expressed through individuals in what they think, say and do in any workplace setting. The left-hand side of Figure 4 shows the many levels of personal and social activity through which the individual can convey his or her values. Each of these levels offers occasions and situations where the personal view can be articulated or suppressed. We can speak up or remain silent about our values in ways that range from the micro-world of reflection and emotion all the way up to the global level and how we respond at work to issues like international supply chain ethics, global warming, or the global financial crisis. Perhaps the most crucial level of all in dealing with ethical matters is the intra-personal level of seif-knowledge and of knowing one's purpose and professional intent. Finding out how to deal with ethical dilemmas requires insight not only into one's own commitments and values but into those attributes and qualities of character that need to be considered when addressing ethical issues. The first case study - "Robyn's dilemma"

exemplifies the kinds of self-knowledge and awareness of professional values that ethical workplaces depend on. Ourrisktakingprofile, our preferred communication style, and the strength of our social and professional networks are all important factors that count towards our capacity to act on deeply held convictions. Without some insight into our psychological makeup the likelihood of successfully influencing the shape of ethical decision-making or of addressing the specifics of ethical dilemmas is greatly reduced. One of the basic pillars of GVV is that ethical dilemmas are not extraordinary events and that there are frequent opportunities for speaking from values-based positions in our work. Given this, we need to acknowledge the normality of values conflicts as well as the opportunities that ethical dilemmas can open up. This kind ofintra-personal awareness ofthe ubiquity of ethical values in our decision making underpins the GVV process of developing skills in expressing our ethical convictions. Robyn's actions to resolve her dilemma sprang from her capacity to find inner strength and to utilise her professional strengths to meet the inhibiting arguments that always arise when ethical alternative are considered. From the intrapersonal we move on to the interpersonal and the dialogical sphere of engaging with others about our ethical values. Holding a conversational view of ethics allows us to appreciate the role of interpersonal exchange as a key site for the implementation of ethical values. Whether it is in having chats by the water cooler or in the candid expression of views in a formal meeting, the interpersonal level is the space where communicating with others about what we think and feel on ethical issue takes on a public and a more concrete reality. When values are expressed to others they enterthe social domain ofdiscussion, debate and contention. New possibilities emerge and innovative options become available for consideration. The interpersonal level is the realm ofpersonal engagement, face-to-face contact and human relationships. In organisations we develop

175


work relationships, we come to know colleagues, and we interact with peers and with individuals from various stakeholders groups. We consult with others and make decisions both as individuals and as groups. Our values permeate these decisions and the conversations that they initiate. From this perspective ethical issues are part of everyday organisational existence and therefore need to be addressed directly at the level of interpersonal communications. Of course we can avoid these conversations and become, as Drumright and Murphy (2004) describe it, morally myopic to the ethical dimensions of everyday workplace decisions and acts. This moral myopia culminates in the kind of amoral management and a lack of moral imagination that characterises corporate fiascos like the Enron, Lehman Brothers andHIH collapses, but also in the impoverished forms of doing business that do not see the potential for real social contribution. The lack of expression of core values at the interpersonal level results in people who are constrained bytheirworkand who do not feel that they can contribute of their true selves in the workplace. The suppression of core values at the interpersonal level is symptomatic of organisations that are morally blind to their responsibility for contributing to the intergenerational health and welfare of local and global communities. Voicing personal values can also occur when we are involved at executive level decision-making or when we have the opportunity to inform statements of, for example, organisational vision, mission or specific policies. In the "Marshalls and supply chain ethics" case study we see that organisations can meet ethical challenges through thepublicexpressionoftheirviewsandthepractical actions that follow on from the unambiguous statement of organisational values. But how did those expressions oforganisational values emerge? A major part of the story will lie with the actions taken by individuals in both formal and informal settings where they decide to let others know of their values. In this particular case we see that one

176

of the senior executives of the company played a key role in Marshalls taking a new position on how it regarded its suppliers. But there might well have been other events such as formal meetings of executive officers, or in chance corridor discussions, or in the preparation of reports and memos where crucial conversations took place that crystallised in Marshalls taking their public position on the supply of Indian sandstone. They acknowledged the issue, they overcame the many inhibiting arguments (''this is not my responsibility", ''this will damage the company" or "it's not impacting on anyone") and they offer enabling responses ("my professional values demand that I speak up about this", ''this organisation has a responsibility to its customers") to address the ethical conflict they faced. Within this context oforganisational environments, leadership is a crucial factor for creating ethical climates and cultures. There is a powerful connection between the creation ofethical organisational climates and the kinds ofleadership that are prevalent with that organisation. Research has shown that our perceptions of the ethical standing of leaders has an impact on our own values of trust and commitment (Den Hartog & De Hoogh, 2009). In their article called "What's needednext:Acultureofcandour" James O'Toole and Warren Bennis (2009) propose that it is the creation of atmospheres of honesty and openness that will mark out the successful organisations of the 21st century. Ofcourse, leaders exist within all positions in organisations but it is the particular responsibility of executive leaders to create organisational level environments that support the open articulation of values. The GVV perspective on the expression of values does not limit itself to just those views that we might typically associate with progressive, or more liberal, or minority viewpoints. In fact, in many organisational settings where our ethics fail us, it is the lack of overt expression of traditional and conservative values that is the central problem. For example, in the context of


leadership culpability, what are we to make of the swift distancing response of Rio Tinto following the jailing in China of four of their executives for accepting bribes? Worldcom's disregard for accepted accounting standards ran against conventional professional accounting practices and it was the only through the speaking out of its internal auditor Cynthia Cooper that the scale of the fraud was uncovered (Scharff, 2005). In these instances the conventional values of professional loyalty and legal compliance were eschewed in favour of more opportunistic objectives. The expression of values also means that assumed, and often culturally dominant, values become more available to public scrutiny.As with the Global Financial Crisis, it can be those silent, unquestioned and culturally dominant values that are the source of the most destructive ethical issues that we face. For example, values related to the maximisation of shareholder wealth, or of the profit motive, or the role of management often go unexpressed and yet dominate organisational goals, decisions and behaviours. These values too need to be expressed and injected into the interpersonal sphere of debate and reasoned argument so that they can be analysed and questioned. Moving on from the organisational, we can also see that values are expressed at the broader levels ofinter-organisational and global networks. Peak bodies, industry representative groups, professional bodies and inter-organisational networks are growing in importance and power. Globalisation itself has been discussed as the expression of certain kinds ofvalues. The case of The Code and the expressed and collective intention of tourism industry bodies show that neither the complexity ofa global network nor that ofthe ethical problem itselfcan stop values being expressed and actions being taken to address that issue. When global bodies sign up to The Code they not only commit to developing ethical policies regarding the commercial sexual exploitation of children but also to the training of personnel, the inclusion oflegal clauses in supplier contracts, providing informa-

tion to all customers, providing local people with key information and drawing up annual reports. These kinds of concerted action are based on a targeting of multilevel strategies and indicate a deep commitment to meeting the central goal of The Code - the eradication of child sex tourism.

Voicing Collective Values Earlier in this chapter mention was made of universal values representing at the mondo level a set of collective values. Clearly, collective values can operate at different levels as depicted by the right hand side ofFigure 3 .At the collective level, individual agents must not only recognize the values represented at each level, but they must hold these as acceptable for the collective for the same to guide ethical behaviour within the focal agency. Evidence of contradiction between the values espoused and the values demonstrated behaviourally will likely inhibit ethical activity. Thus, the mere existence of an organisational code of conduct espousing a set of worthy values is no guarantee of ethical behaviour as evidenced in the corporate world in recent years. While the Marshalls case shows that the clear statement of organisational values can ultimately act as a rallying point for ethical actions, the presence of codes does not, by any means, guarantee that an organisation will practice those values. That bribery may be a required operating norm in many countries, industries and organisations is simply an inhibiting argument to cloud and downplay the illegal nature of the act. Also, that individuals feel compelled and indeed, may even be compelled for fear ofloss of their career to engage in such behaviour does not alter the existence of choice, however remote it may appear. The question in these and other such cases that needs addressing is: what is the responsibility of senior management, of leaders at each of the collective levels (Figure 3) in ensuring that the values espoused in organisational statements and codes of conduct are not breached?

177


Clearly there must be accountability since the management ofemployee behaviour in the course of their duties on behalf of the organisation is the charge of managers and leaders. That individual actions may be carried out 'in the name of the organisation' reinforces the responsibilities of leaders, in this case, to ensure that any perception that an individual may be acting unethically out of loyalty to the organisation (the collective) is misguided. Indeed, somewhat ironically, not to act unethically would seem demonstrative ofeven greaterloyaltysinceitwouldprotectthelongterm image interests of the organisation. The same can be said too of the act ofwhistleblowing as being ultimately demonstrative ofloyalty to the agency. That said, what leaders must do to establish a strong moral ethos is as suggested by O'Toole and Bennis (2009): create a culture of candour, openness, transparency and trust. The GVV process provides an opportunity to script an answer at all levels to the implementation question: "If I am to voice and act on my values, what must I say and do?" Focussing on the right hand side of Figure 3, with an appropriate shift in language this question can be framed at any level whether the global or the personal collective. At all levels, it is often the a priori reasons and rationalisations proffered that inhibit positive ethical response. Inhibiting arguments such as that of social proof i.e., it's the norm in this country, industry etc. appear powerful justifications and indeed, serve to downplay the severity of any unethical act for the perpetrator be they individual or collective. For example, in Case 3 above, the justification by a hotel owner that 'selling child sex puts food on the family table that otherwise would not be there' is indicative of such an attempt to downplay the severity of the act of selling a child's body to the tourist for a price. Indeed, that justifications are sought acknowledges the existence of a questionable act. As a starting assumption, GVV holds the appreciative view that individuals/groups would rather act ethically than not. Thus, the question posed at

178

the collective level remains valid, "If we are to act in line with our values what must we say and do?" Indeed, merely posing the question opens up the opportunity for further dilemma-solving conversation to take place by collective members. In terms of "actioning" it is the role of the leader therefore to establish enabling structures, systems and processes, a moral ethos that reinforces openness and transparency and that empowers at all levels the voicing of values and the establishment of alternative values driven behaviour for the benefit of all stakeholders. Whether the leader agent here is global, national, industry or organisation, the same applies. What changes perhaps is the structure ofany developed support network. As is the case at the individual level, the GVV process highlights the need for the formation of like-minded support alliances (See case #1) which collectively can propose ethically strong alternative counterarguments to any pro-unethical position. The dangers in not doing so are evident at all levels and the culpability potentially equally damaging. In this chapter we propose the existence of clear advantages arising from the GVV process initiating values driven ethical conversations that have the potential to lead to significant benefits at all levels, whether these be in search of: global warming solutions, nuclear disarmament, peace between waring nations, collective industry response to corruption and other crimes such as sex tourism and the industry level establishment a code of ethics and the broad representative organisational commitment thereto (case study #3). We have seen that the GVV approach can provide a means for analysing and developing the expression of values at multiple levels of organisational life from the personal and interpersonal to the organisational to the societal and global levels. In the previous section the application of GVV was done in two ways, frrst as the action of the single individual articulating their values across these multiple contexts and second as the collective expression of values through each


level. In the former instance it is always about the individual expression of values and in the second it is about the collective expression. This view reflects the growing recognition that social collectives have an agency that is not simply the aggregation ofindividual actions.All levels within the multilayered social ecology of organisations and their environments possess the agentic capacity to express values and act on them. Players within all levels are subject to structural forces that can shape those values and their expression. The causal relationships between each of these levels are multidirectional in that the micro and meso levels can inform, guide and challenge the macro and mondo levels and vice versa. Figure 4 provides this integrative perspective using the micro, meso, macro and mondo levels of the personal, organisational and global respectively.

SOME GUIDING PRINCIPLES The GVV approach to the study of ethics in the workplace has identified seven principles or pillars that serve to enable and encourage one's ethical voice (Gentile, 2008). These guiding principles have relevance for each of the ecological levels that we have been considering in this chapter. In this section we discuss the principles with particular reference to the relationship between the individual and the global expression of values. One of the most daunting aspects of contemporary life is the huge disparity between our sense of personal agency and the often overwhelming constraints that go along with living in large social systems. Seeing how we can express our values so that the local and global, and all the layers in between, are recognised as intimately connected is an important task for any ethics programme that addresses contemporary issues. The first GVV pillar is values and, as we have mentioned previously, researchers have identified a relatively short list ofcore values that are widely shared across cultures. This means thatthere exists

a fundamental and common ground for ethical conversations across cultures. First, however, we must consider the significance of the issue at hand (i.e., does it rise to a level that warrants intervention?) and second, when raising ethical issues in a global context, we do well to appeal to a set of values that are likely to be shared by our target audiences. Values are too often regarded as cultural markers that divide communities and we need to affirm more positively that values are also fundamental to the connections that can be developed across all kinds of social and geographical boundaries. Global agreements such as The Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights, The Kyoto protocol, The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, The Global Compact, The Declaration of the Rights of the Child are all based on values that resonate across national, cultural and political divides. The second GVV pillar is Choice: that is, we can identify examples ofinstances where individuals, organisations as well as societies have indeed made the choice to voice and enact their values, as well as instances when they have not. When reflecting on ourselves and our own organisations, this observation enables us to avoid the opposing pitfalls of a dangerous self-satisfaction and self-righteousness on the one hand and a disempowering despair on the other. When considering our target audience, this observation enables us to be both realistic as well as to avoid a counterproductive vilification. The awareness of Choice is particularly crucial when we feel diminished by the sheer size of the ethical problem that is confronting us. For example, many individuals, organisations and governments clearly feel that they are unable to address the magnitude of the climate change challenge that now confronts us. But we also know from the stories of individuals who do overcome immense challenges that the exercising ofpersonal choice is still possible even in the face of such daunting global problems. The belief in our personal capacity to choose and to make a difference is necessary if collective ac-

179


tion for developing a more sustaining world is to betaken. The third pillarisNormalization which simply means that we recognize the ubiquity and predictability of values conflicts, thereby reducing our anxiety and increasing our ability to tap into our full repertoire of skills and abilities when addressing them. At the global level this principle is most clearly present in the vast supply chain networks that now fan out across the globe. And ethical dilemmas and opportunities for doing things better and differently face each of us with almost every consumer choice that we make. Whether it is some simple consumer purchase of a product such as chocolate or paving stone or a more complex agreement involving multiple international partners, there are few commercial transactions occurring in today's world that do not involve some ethical supply chain issue. Where almost all organisations have some international links, where communications and information technologies connect workplaces across the world and where inequalities in incomes, working conditions and social opportunities abound then we must expect to encounter ethical dilemmas on a daily basis. However, these realities also create the conditions for the emergence of new opportunities for ethical innovations and new ways of framing old problems. Not only are ethical challenges to be regarded as normal but so also are the possibilities that they open up for creating a more humane workplace that is in tune with its suppliers, customers, host communities and the web of global relationships in which organisations operate. The fourth pillar is Purpose. Gentile (2010a) has found that individuals who effectively voice and enact their values tend to frame their personal and organisational objectives broadly and explicitly. Rather than simply assuming that making this quarter'snumbersorclosingaparticularsalesdeal is our main goal in any particular week, we focus on the larger and longer term impact we wish to make in our careers, our professions and through

180

our firms. By defining our professional purpose more broadly it opens up the ethical horizons by which we assess what we do and how we do it. What is our professional purpose in a globalised economy? If we respond to this question with narrow views about following job descriptions or following the traditional ways of doing things or not taking risks or just catering to the needs of limited groups of stakeholders, then our ethical sense, both with regard to problems and possibilities, will also be limited. Ifwe define our purpose in terms ofinternational and global business issues, using extended understandings of key stakeholders or over longer-term time frames, then we are far more likely to take a more developed ethical stance on many issues and take advantage of the possibilities they make available. The fifth pillar is Self-Knowledge and Alignment, and this refers to the fact that individuals tend to be more likely to voice their values and to do so more skillfully when they play to their strengths, as opposed to working against their own natural tendencies. For example, rather than preaching moral courage to someone who views themselves as cautious and even timid, it may be more effective to help them frame voicing their values as the most conservative and careful response. Knowing who we are and how we can best express our core commitments are crucial factors in the process of taking action on ethical issues. Knowing who we are also means that we have an understanding ofour place in a globalised world and an organisational environmentthatoften extends way beyond what we can see. The sixth pillar is Voice and this simply refers to the fact that research suggests that individuals who practise expressing their values are more likely to do so. In the decades that come it will become increasingly important for us to recognise that individuals have the right and the responsibility to express their views on all kinds of big picture issues. Creating workplace climates that support the open expression of values will play an important part of this change.


And finally, the seventh pillar is Reasons and Rationalizations, referring to the fact that the kinds of arguments typically employed to defend seemingly unethical behaviours are predictable and vulnerable to reasoned response, and that anticipating them and generating effective "scripts" in response can encourage individuals' likelihood to voice their values. The rationalisations and neutralising arguments (Ashforth &Anand, 2003; Heath, 2008) that we offer and encounter in the workplace often revolve around limiting our ethical perspective to narrow interpretations of what our responsibilities are, who we are responsible to and how we should respond to social and environmental issues within a business context. Globalisation and contemporary models of work andmanagementmeansthatthesekindsofboundaries are becoming less relevant to the operations of the workplace. The "reasons and rationalisations" that inhibit ethical responses also inhibit good business processes. "Just doing your job" or following "the way things are done around here" are no longer adequate performance heuristics in contemporary workplaces. The organisational environments that support technical and service innovation will also most likely support ethical innovation and that applies to global opportunities and responsibilities as much anything else.

HOW GW CAN CONTRIBUTE TO A GLOBAL ETHICS Globalisation has brought with it many opportunities but also ethical problems of such a scale that they challenge and even threaten the capacity of the planet to provide sustaining environments for the generations that follow. But these systemic problems require not only systemic solutions targeted at the level of structures and regulatory oversight but also new insights into the power of the individual voice. Moreover, GVV says that this voice can play a role at every level of organisational involvement from the micro to

the mondo. It is not only that the expression of personal values ripples up through the multiple levels of organisational activity and then out into the levels ofnational and global business environments. It is also that those levels are themselves always involved in conversations that, of course, have ethical implications. Businesses speak with other businesses. Governments speak with other governments, with organisations and industry bodies and so on. There are multiple avenues through which the 'collective' voices its concerns and the GVV focus on values-based conversations is applicable to these collective voices as much as to the personal voice. Many ofthe ethical issues that arise in a global context occur at the intersection of levels. They can be found at those points where organisations encounter communities, in those settings where individual freedoms are met by large multinational corporations and institutions, or where national governments are in conflict with international bodies like the United Nations or other NGOs who operate at the global level. These confrontations often result in inhibiting arguments and aggressive actions for neutralising ethical concerns. What allows the emergence of ways forward and possible solutions to such confronting and difficult circumstances is the creation ofenvironments that permit the open and lawful exchange of views -the honest expression of core values. The explicit understanding of our place within the web ofrelationships and of how a well-placed conversation here can enable the creation of an alliance or a multi-stakeholder coalition there, leading to policy recommendations at the corporate, professional or even government levels is both essential and empowering. But similarly, it becomes important to understand that although individual voice can be impactful, it often is an incremental process, and that systemic ethical challenges must be addressed systemically, so that individuals can regulate their expectations and avoid a disabling impatience.

181


The GVV approach can also a new way of pinpointing the critical times and places where values-based conversations need to be held. There are critical points where the expression of one's ethical commitments does have a greater impact. For example, in decision making forums and in situations where new structures, systems and procedures are being created, the opportunities for shaping the ethical climate and moral ethos (Snell, 2000) of a social context are increased. At these times, the role of leadership in supporting organisational climates that nurture the communication of values is crucial. These environments can extend well beyond the immediate proximity of organisational employees. Extended environments that include multiple stakeholder groups are also engaged. For example, in overseeing the design and implementation of a new sales incentive programme, managers can include not only the views of executives and sales staff but also customers and community stakeholder groups. The point here is that values can have a particularly powerful impact when they are expressed in key decision-making situations. The GVV focus on action and communication is suited to the implementation of ethical commitments across different social levels. GVV can invigorate the personal commitment to enact one's core values in the workplace and it can also help us to appreciate the collective voice. "My example is powerful" becomes "the example of my group is powerful", "the example of my organisation is powerful" and ''the example of my industry's peak body is powerful" and so on to the mondo-level of nations and international bodies. The relevance of this broadening of one's ethical horizon is apparent for those in elite leadership circles but the real power of this perspective lies much deeper within the ubiquitous presence of leadership in each layer of an organisation. This view of GVV meshes well with the developing view of leadership as a multilevel reality (Day et al., 2009).

182

CONCLUSION This chapter has presented a multilevel approach to the practical expression of core values and ethical commitments. The reality ofglobalisation means that the growing power of economic and commercial organisations will have influences and result in important changes throughout all of the levels nested within its ambit - from the personal to the global. A global ethics will need not only to cope with the complexities of this reality but also with the need for imagining how we can express and implement our core values in each of these domains. GVV provides a way of rigorously exploring implementing values across multiple levels of business activity from the personal to the global. It can stimulate the expression of our best shared values and create supportive spaces for talking about global issues from the position of ethical innovation rather than ethical sanctioning and regulation. Also GVV provides a framework for initiating dialog and, it is through such dialog that the challenges associated with expressing ethical values at any level can be explored. More boldly, dialog by implication not only suggests the existence of a conversation involving more than one party, but by implication, the GVV framework implies that parties concerned are 'present' to any conversation. 'Present' as used in this sense implies the existence of an implicit willingness on behalf of all parties to engage in a shared values-based discussion. The upfront goal is to arrive at a conversational place where conflict does not stop communication and a space within which personal values can be voiced and heard is maintained. We hold that from such an open conversational platform a vast array of dilemmas whether political, commercial or otherwise at any level, can not only be explored, but potential synergistic solutions to these can also be discovered. We often see in areas ofrapid change that ethical considerations lag well behind the forefront of technological and commercial innovation.


Globalisation is occurring across a growing number of domains of activity while our capacities for ethical reflection, conversation and action struggle to deal with the complexities brought on by these transformations. Globalisation is not only about large-scale international change, it is also fundamentally about how individuals, organisations, communities, cultures and natural environments interact, impact and speak to each other about very important matters. If we fail to establish a firm ethical foundation for these interactions, it is unlikely that globalisation will result in equitable and sustainable commercial practices and economic systems. Giving Voice to Values is an innovative approach to organisational and business ethics that offers a way ofimplementing and expressing ethical values at the micro, meso, macro and mondo levels of social interaction. In doing so it contributes to the emergence of a global ethics that can make a real difference to how globalisation unfolds in the coming decades.

REFERENCES Amabile, T. M., Hadley, C. N., & Kramer, S. J. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 52-63. Apel, K.-0. (2008). Globalisation and the need for universal ethics. In Cortina, A., Garcia-Mana, D., & Conill, J. (Eds.), Public reason and applied ethics (pp. 135-154). Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Ashforth, B. E., &Anand, V. (2003). Thenonnalization ofcorruption in organizations. Research in OrganizationalBehavior,25, l-52.doi:I0.1016/ S0191-3085(03)25001-2 Ashforth, B. E., Gioia, D. A., Robinson, S. L., & Trevino, L. K. (2008). Re-viewing organisational corruption. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 670-684. doi:I0.5465/ AMR.2008.32465714

Butler, E. (2009). Masters in business [Radio broadcast]. London: BBC World Service. Collier, J., & Fuller, T. (2004). Introduction: Corporations, ethics and global futures. Futures, 37(23), 111-116. doi:l0.1016/j.futures.2004.03.031 Commers, R., Vandekerckhove, W., & Verlinden, A. (2008). Ethics in the era ofglobalization. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing. Day, D. V., &Harrison,M. M. (2007).Amultilevel, identity-based approach to leadership development. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 360-373. doi:l0.1016/j.hnnr.2007.08.007 Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. London, UK: Routledge. Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2009). Empowering behaviour and leader fairness and integrity: Studying perceptions of ethical leader behaviour from a levels-of-analysis perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(2), 199-230. doi: 10.1080/13594320802362688 Dollar, D. (2005). Globalization, poverty, and inequality since 1980. The World Bank Research Observer, 20(2), 145-175. doi:l0.1093/wbro/ lki008 Donaldson, T. D. T. W. (1999). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Dower, N. (2007). World ethics: The new agenda (2nd ed.). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Drumwright, M. E., & Murphy, P. E. (2004). How advertising practitioners view ethics: Moral muteness, moral myopia, and moral imagination. Journal ofAdvertising, 33(2), 7-24.

183


Eade, J., & O'Byrne, D. J. (Eds.). (2005). Global ethics and civil society. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419-1452. doi:l0.1111/1467-6486.00386 Engelbrecht, A. S., Aswegen, A. S., & Theron, C. C. (2005). The effect of ethical values on transformational leadership and ethical climate in organisations. South African Journal ofBusiness Management, 36(2), 19-26. Ferguson,M. (2007). The mythology about globalization. In McQuail, D., Golding, P., & de Bens, E. (Eds.), Communication theory and research (pp. 23-35). New York, NY: Sage. Gentile, M. (2008, July/August). Voicing values, finding answers. BizEd, 40-45. Gentile, M. (201 Oa). Giving voice to values: How to speak your mind when you know what :S- right. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Gentile, M. (2010b). Starting assumptions for giving voice to values. Babson Park, MA: Babson College. Gilley, K. M., Robertson, C. J., & Mazur, T. C. (2010). The bottom-line benefits of ethics code commitment. Business Horizons, 53(1), 31-37. doi:l0.1016/j.bushor.2009.08.005 Girl, A. K. (2006). Cosmopolitanism and beyond: Towards a multi verse of transformations. Development and Change, 37(6), 1277-1292. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2006.00524.x Grojean, M. W., Resick, C. J., Dickson, M. W., & Smith, D. B. (2004). Leaders, values, and organizational climate: Examining leadership strategies for establishing an organizational climate regarding ethics.Journal a/Business Ethics, 55(3), 223. doi: 10.1007Is10551-004-1275-5

184

Harrop, C. (2008). Interview with Chris Harrop from Marshalls. CSR360 Global Partner Network [Online]. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http: //www.csr360gpn. org/magazine/feature/ interview-with-chris- harrop-marshalls/ Heath, J. (2008). Business ethics and moral motivation: A criminological perspective. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 83(4), 595-614. doi:l0.1007/ s10551-007-9641-8 House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration ofmicro and macro organizational behaviour . In Cummings, L. L., & Straw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 71-114). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organisational behaviour. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 386-408. doi:l0.5465/ AMR.2006.20208687 Jorgenson, A., & Kick, E. (Eds.). (2006). Globalization and the environment. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Press. Klein, K., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kiing, H., & Schmidt, H. (Eds.). (1998). A global ethic and global responsibilities: Two declarations. London, UK: SCM Press. Larmer, R. A. (1992). Whistleblowing and employee loyalty. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 11(2), 125. doi:10.1007/BF00872319 O'Toole, J., & Bennis, W. (2009). What's needed next: A culture of candor. Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 54-61. Odysseos, L. (2003). On the way to global ethics? Cosmopolitanism, ethical selfhood and otherness. European Journal ofPolitical Theory, 2(2), 183-207.


Oyserman, D., & Uskul,A. K. (2008). Individualism and collectivism: Societal-level processes with implications for individual-level and society-level outcomes . In van de Vijver, F., van Hemert, D., & Poortinga, Y. (Eds.), Multilevel analysis of individuals and cultures (pp. 145-173 ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Singer, P. (2004). One world: The ethics of globalization (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Snell, R. S. (2000). Studying moral ethos using an adaptedKohlbergianmodel. Organization Studies, 21(1),267-295. doi: 10.1177/0170840600211006

Papastephanou, M. (2005). Globalisation, globalism and cosmopolitanism as an educational ideal. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 3 7(4), 533-551. doi:lO.l l ll/j.1469-5812.2005.00139.x

Starik, M., & Rands, G. P. (1995). Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 908-935.

Peters, R. T. (2004). In search of the good life: The ethics of globalization. New York, NY: Continuum.

Whalley, J. (2008). Globalisation and values. World Economy, 31(11), 1503-1524.

Rosanas, J.M., & Velilla, M. (2005). The ethics of management control systems: Developing technical and moral values. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 57(1), 83-96. doi:10.1007/s10551-004-3826-1

Winter, G. (2006). Multilevel governance of global environmental change: Perspectives from science, sociology and the law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:l0.1017/ CB0978051l720888

Saul, J. R. (2009). The collapse ofglobalism and the reinvention ofthe world. Melbourne, Australia: Penguin Books. Scharff, M. M. (2005). WorldCom: A failure of moral and ethical values. Journal ofApplied Management andEntrepreneurship, 10(3), 35-47. Schrader, D. (2009). Globalization and human values: Promises and challenges. The Journal of Philosophy, 4(10), 22-31. Schwartz, M. S. (2005). Universal moral values for corporate codes ofethics. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 59(1-2), 2-44. doi:10.1007/s10551-0053403-2

Woo, C. (n.d.).Press about giving voice to values. The Aspen Institute Online. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from http: //aspencbe.org/teaching I gvv/press.html Wood, D. J. (2006). Global business citizenship:A transformative framework for ethics and sustainable capitalism. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York, NY: Random House.

185

Ethical Models and Applications of Globalization

Ethical Models and Applications of Globalization

Suggest Documents